Fair does not = equal, in my opinion; well not equal like most people think and definitely not equal in the spread of oxygen.
Fair is properly compensated for input and value; so for instance a heart surgeon who saves dozens of lives a year earning /$500,000 and a person who cuts grass earning $15,000 per year is fair.
A system which tries to get them both on $50,000 per year, is not fair; and more to the point, it is dangerous and stupid.
nobody has to prove anything to anybody to get oxygen (or even water and sun light). There is no need to justify, there is no effort to make to deserve anything. Just take what you need when you need it. No more reason to fight or to compete.
You can only say this, because we happen to be living at this point in human history, if you lived a couple of hundred thousand years ago, there was plenty of competition for the things you mention.
There is nothing wrong with competition, nurtured in the right way, it can help the group as well as the individuals involved.
Cg
Well, that is exactly what I said above. The sign != means 'not equal'. Sorry if I use a geeky/computerscienced way to mean it.
For some people, Fair is about equal (not me obviously, if you read me well) For other, Fair is about what you deserve (capitalists).... But even communists! The similarity of these 2 systems? It still implies a lot of subjectivity. A communist will still agree with a capitalist that a surgeon 'deserves' to earn more and get more recognition (look at Cuba) than someone who cut grass.
People tends to misunderstand communism and think it is about equality, while it has more to do with planification and control of the market supply and demand, while capitalism (in fact I should say liberalism) is about free market. But in the end a monopolistic capitalist organisation can have the same impact over its customers than a communist state with its citizen. Zuck played by the rules of capitalism and now he has earned the right to tweak Facebook overnight whether its billion daily users like it or not. It seems a bit communist to me. But hey, he works hard for it and deserves this right, right?
For me, fair should be about what one's need (not about meritocracy or about equality). Take what you need to live (you may breath more than me, or need more oxygen because you do sport, well help yourself, I won't feel annoyed, or jealous by that). This concept favour individuals even more than capitalism without creating friction between economic agents. Hence there is no more relationships based on coercion, power, clientelism, corruption.
But once again this concept cannot exist when as a society we create scarcity on purpose to maintain the rat race, and the government in place. When Fair == individual needs, I don't care how much you consume, just take what you want, it won't reduce my stake in an abundante economy.
Yes, happily we evolve, nothing lasts forever, civilisations appear and fall. No matter how hard they are ingrained in our tradition and culture, ideologies and economic dogma (whether it is capitalism or communism) will follow the same path. But still I don't remember an age where mankind competed to breath :-p
Last thing, I definitly agree with your last point. But the global situation (economic warfare, looting of african and middle east ressources, corporatocracy) shows that the game is rigged and favour those who already have power. Ideal capitalism is like ideal communism, it never existed.
My ultimate point is that we have to think beyond this paradigm of capitalism/communism. Trying to maintain an artificial opposition between those two is a mistake. China is the living example that both do pretty well together.
(By the way, thanks for your post, your replies and the discussion ;-) )